September 30, 2014, 04:59:43 PM

Author Topic: 24L or 35L  (Read 13056 times)

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2012, 08:32:03 AM »
I think 35mm is just more versatile in the end. You can also shoot people with a 35mm lens and get some kind of "journalist" look to the photo. The 35mm look shows the subject and its environment while with a 50mm its more focused on the main subject. 24mm is a bit too wide for people photography imho and is best suited for environment only photography. Something like classy holiday photos or scenes where there is just much to discover for the eye.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2012, 08:34:47 AM by sandymandy »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2012, 08:32:03 AM »

7enderbender

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2012, 09:24:31 AM »
Tough question always. I don't have either and still resort to my 24-105 for anything wider than 50 (my main lenses are the 50L and the 135L). 35mm has always been a struggle for me. Not really that wide but too wide for people shots at least for me. In the film days I always went straight for either the 50 or the 28 while my old 35mm lens is in factory condition.

35mm gives a lot of context and some people like it for that. I like to go in a little more and draw attention to the details. Sometimes you need the context however and you want the same outstanding quality you get from your other primes. So I understand the question.

24 is not ideal either in my book though. I'm actually thinking about adding one of the TS lenses and a Zeiss 21mm to my bag at some point.
5DII - 50L - 135L - 200 2.8L - 24-105 - 580EXII - 430EXII - FD 500/8 - AE1-p - bag full of FD lenses

The Bad Duck

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2012, 09:53:52 AM »
I got the 35L. It´s great, not that fantasticly sharp as its hype (perhaps I should Micro Focus Adjust it again?) but where it really shine is in contrast and colours.

The wider it gets, the harder it is to make portraits look good. And 24 is not that crazy wide to give that superwide effect to a wedding photo. So the 24 is hard to use and still does not really "pop" like 15-20mm would.

At first I skipped the 35L and got the 28 /1.8 and while I find that lens better than what you hear in forums it never really worked for me as a enviromental portrait lens (heany distortion - faces look really strange). The 35 does way better.

Usually wide portraits get static in composition since you have to keep the face of your subject in the centre of the fram in order to keep them from looking wierd. The 35 lets me compose in a more dynamic way and I like that.

As mentioned above the 24L is a "better" lens; sharper, better sealed an so on.

My advice? Wait for reviews of the sigma 35 /1.4 and the canon 35 /2 IS. If you can wait a bit longer they might drop in price aswell. But anyway, have a serious look at the 35mm focal length. It is very useful.

Good luck with your choise!

Jesse

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2012, 10:06:57 AM »
35mm is the most boring focal length IMO.
5D3, 8-15 f/4 L, 24-70 f/2.8 II L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 IS L, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2.8 L, 135 f/2 L 600EX-RT x2, CS6, LR5

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2012, 10:43:32 AM »
Sorry to necropost!

I love it. First time I've seen that term!
Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 933
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #35 on: November 28, 2012, 12:18:17 PM »
BOTH! ....of course!!!!!! LOL!
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

Bosman

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
    • View Profile
    • Bosman Photography
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2012, 02:51:22 PM »
24 on crop bodies aps-h and aps-c, 35 on FF.
Check your images for what focal length you use most when you use a zoom and you will find the evidence there. I have the 24L II and it is an amazing lens ad it is incredible for product photography but i use it for weddings on aps-h and it is stellar. If i shot 2 5dm3's i'd prob do the 35 but I may stretch myself to shoot wide and stay with the 24 because I just get in closer and shoot which it is a more interesting perspective.
Also i recommend checking out another canon forum that displays an extensive amount of images in their image gallery.
for the 24L
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=649213
35L
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1121099
Bosman Photography www.bosmanphotography.com, Fast Photo Pro www.fastphotopro.com
Follow Bosman Photography on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Bosman.Photography
Sports Photography  Follow Fast Photo Pro on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Fast.Photo.Pr

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #36 on: November 28, 2012, 02:51:22 PM »

Kernuak

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
    • Avalon Light Photoart
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #37 on: November 28, 2012, 03:43:13 PM »
I recently had the same question... so i went into lightroom with one of my weddings and sorted by focal length on my 24-70. i had about 150 shot at 24, and only 15 at 35. Since its a zoom and can be used at focal lengthes around 35, i added up all the shots from 30-40mm and it was still less than at 24.

So i bought the 24.

Maybe you can do the same? rent the 24-70 and shoot an event or something, then see what you used most!

I've noticed that, for me at least, when I look over the EXIF metadata from shots with zoom lenses, something like 80% of the shots are at the extreme ends of the zoom range - that's true for my 16-35 right through my 100-400.  Honestly, I've got a lot more shots from my 24-105mm at 24mm than from 30-40mm - but here's what the EXIF doesn't tell you - many (most?) of those shots at 24mm are cropped a bit, often right into that ~30-35mm AoV.

I think there may be a natural tendency to rack zooms to one end or the other, so if testing with a zoom to determine the best FL for a prime, you may be better off setting the zoom to the possible FLs and shooting at each for a while rather that looking retrospectively.

Sorry to necropost! But I figured I would just use this thread instead of starting a new one. That's interesting that you usually crop to around 30ish...

I am looking at getting either the 24 or the 35, and I was wondering... what is the main difference in the feel of the two perspectives? On a FF camera, the 35 1.4 sees about the same as 24 on a 7D?

Also, which lens is typically better? Many seem to rave about the 24 1.4's contrast and colour rendition. Is the 35 similar, or does it fall short? Thanks!
I can't comment on the 35 L, as I've never used it and budgets usually limit how many primes :P. It largely depends on what you are shooting though. I actually find my 24 to be wide enough for my uses and rarely need to go wider on FF (which is why I sold my 17-40). On the other hand though, I rarely crop my images taken with the 24, unless one leg decides to grow during the shoot and I have to straighten the images. I'm using it almost entirely for landscapes though and have only taken a few portrait shots with it and then it has been to show the environment surrounding the subject, rather than for any extreme effects.
One consideration, if you get the 24 and decide you need to crop, you can do, albeit at the expense of a few pixels, but you can't add in pixels if you decide you needed to go wider than the 35 allowed in the space available. If you have a zoom that covers the range, then I would add my voice to trying out what you would expect to shoot at the two focal lengths and see which suits your needs the best.
Canon 5D MkIII, 7D, 300mm L IS f/2.8 and a few other L's

l0pht

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #38 on: November 28, 2012, 04:08:52 PM »
I ended up going with the 35L and couldn't be happier.  I actually sold my Sigma 50 1.4 and the 35 lives on my camera the majority of the time.  Picked up a 85 and I have a 50mm gap in all my lenses.  35L, 85 and 135L.

Shot weddings, families, sports, landscape with this setup and haven't wished for anything else.  Other than a 100mm macro :)

Bosman

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 879
    • View Profile
    • Bosman Photography
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2012, 08:23:51 PM »
I ended up going with the 35L and couldn't be happier.  I actually sold my Sigma 50 1.4 and the 35 lives on my camera the majority of the time.  Picked up a 85 and I have a 50mm gap in all my lenses.  35L, 85 and 135L.

Shot weddings, families, sports, landscape with this setup and haven't wished for anything else.  Other than a 100mm macro :)
Perfect selection. ^^
Bosman Photography www.bosmanphotography.com, Fast Photo Pro www.fastphotopro.com
Follow Bosman Photography on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Bosman.Photography
Sports Photography  Follow Fast Photo Pro on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Fast.Photo.Pr

SJTstudios

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #40 on: November 30, 2012, 12:24:16 PM »
A lot of people use a 50 for thos candid shots, the 135 for portraits, and the 24 for group shots. This also works for other things. Ex. 24 for landscapes, 50, for normal view and sometimes other creative shots, it's a great standard on ff, and the 135 for sports, wildlife, and if you step back, some macro

Marek Truchlik

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • To the nature
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2012, 04:26:52 AM »
I had same dilemma.  Friend advised me to go out with zoom and later to compare how many shots I did with 24mm and how many with 35mm. Ratio was 70:30.
Since that time I have 24 L II. It is and excellent lens, little bit soft wide open and suffers little CA.
I shoot landscapes and architecture with it.
Rarely groups if I´m asked.
If you would like to go to wedding or fashion, than 35mm is better choice.
5D III | 7D | G7
17-40/4L USM | 24-70/2.8L USM | 70-200/4L IS USM
24/1.4L USM II | 100/2.8L IS USM Macro | 300/2.8L IS USM

sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2012, 04:20:09 PM »
I ended up going with the 35L and couldn't be happier.  I actually sold my Sigma 50 1.4 and the 35 lives on my camera the majority of the time.

Told you :D I think 35mm is a really cool focal range.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2012, 04:20:09 PM »

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2012, 08:31:49 PM »
The iphone camera's focal length is around 35mm.

CreationHeart

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
    • CreationHeart Photography
Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2012, 08:13:17 AM »
good choice. 24L is too wide and not that wide, can be difficult to get used to.
1Dx, 5Dmk3, 15mm fisheye, 16-35L, 35L, 85L, 100L, 135L, 70-200L IS II, 500L and accessories.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 24L or 35L
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2012, 08:13:17 AM »